RE: Cascaded Rewriting

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Shevek
> Sent: woensdag 13 april 2005 1:02
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [srs-discuss] Cascaded Rewriting
>
>
> On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 17:06 +0200, Stephan Menzel wrote:

> > Am Dienstag, 12. April 2005 16:53 schrieb Mark:

> > > When you re-code an existing SRS0 address, you
> > > essentially promote it to an SRS1 address. This address can
> > > be reversed by srs_reverse. Whether you can reverse the
> > > ensuing SRS0 address depends, of course, on whether you
> > > signed it yourself (or have the key).
> >
> > Well, I can safely assume that.
> >
> > > The result of srs_reverse may be an SRS0 address itself.
> > > So, yes, if you want to reverse that too, a second pass would be
> > > required. Since there is no promoting SRS1 addresses to SRS2,
> > > etc, every reversal step should take a two-pass maximum.
> >
> > OK. So it'll be best If I always do two passes to cover all
> > those cases. Thanks a lot!
>
> You would do best to read the paper at
> http://www.libsrs2.org/srs/srs.pdf, since this explains the
> how, the why and the wherefore of multiple rewriting.

I suspect he is worried that, within his internal network, from mailer to
mailer, things might get signed twice, or more. The 'cleanest' solution
for those cases, actually, is simply not to re-sign addresses to begin
with for anything which is, say, in class w (as I do in my srs-socketmap
approach), so that you only produce one single SRS0 address. Otherwise,
like the OP, you will need to check for possible SRS1 addresses on
the return.

- Mark 
 
        System Administrator Asarian-host.org
 
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx